Silly question but why not specify the template element as if it's contents
were PCDATA, and the document fragment is the "value". Then this whole
thing isn't really any different than a <textarea>.
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 8:25 AM, Rafael Weinstein <rafaelw@google.com>wrote:
> I think I'm not understanding the implications of your argument.
>
> You're making a principled argument about future pitfalls. Can you
> help me get my head around it by way of example?
>
> Perhaps:
> -pitfalls developers fall into
> -further dangerous points along the slippery slope you think this
> opens up (you mentioned pandoras box)
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 4:04 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 11:48 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> >> Does anyone object to me adding <template>, <content>, and <shadow> to
> >> the HTML parser spec next week?
> >
> > I don't object to adding them if they create normal child elements in
> > the DOM. I do object if <template> has a null firstChild and the new
> > property that leads to a fragment that belongs to a different owner
> > document.
> >
> > (My non-objection to creating normal children in the DOM should not be
> > read as a commitment to support templates Gecko.)
> >
> >
> > --
> > Henri Sivonen
> > hsivonen@iki.fi
> > http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
> >
>
>